Page 27 - Fall2013

SOME LiES GMO LabELinG OppOnEntS arE rEcycLinG in WaShinGtOn StatE
by Zack Kaldveer, Organic consumers association, august 21, 2013

it’s déjà vu all over again. Last year a coalition of out-of-state, multinational biotech, pesticide and junk food corporations
spent nearly forty-six million dollars to narrowly defeat proposition 37, california's GMO Labeling initiative. now the
same who’s who of the world’s most notorious global corporate bad actors has descended on Washington State. Why?
to try to stop Washington State voters from passing i-522, a citizens’ initiative which, if passed, will require mandatory
labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in all food products sold in Washington State.

LiE: Labeling genetically engineered foods (GMOs) will cost taxpayers millions of dollars a year.
truth: Empirical studies have concluded labeling would lead to no increases in prices. Since the European union labeled
GMOs in the 1990’s, there has been "no resulting increase in grocery costs."trader Joe’s, clif bar & co. and Washington’s
own pcc natural Markets all label their non-GMO product lines at no additional cost to consumers.

LiE: i-522 is full of arbitrary special interest exemptions that will just confuse consumers.
truth: i-522 requires labeling for the GE foods that are most prevalent in the american diet: food on supermarket
shelves. i-522’s exemptions are easy to explain and guided by common sense and the law.

LiE: consumers don’t need labels to avoid GMOs. all they need to do is buy certified organic products.
truth: Food companies routinely and intentionally mislead consumers by labeling products “natural” in order to attract
health-conscious consumers. because the u.S. Food & Drug administration (FDa) does not prohibit the use of the word
“natural” on products containing GMOs, most consumers are fooled by this label.

LiE: Washington will be the only state in the nation to label GMOs, unfairly hurting farmers and the state’s multi-billion
dollar agricultural industry.
truth: Washington won’t be the only state labeling GE foods. connecticut, Maine and alaska have passed labeling
laws and dozens of other states are considering identical proposals. besides, sixty-four countries already require labeling,
so many farmers are already used to labeling for exports.

LiE: i-522 encourages shakedown lawsuits by giving trial lawyers an unprecedented new right to sue farmers, food pro-
ducers and store owners over the wording on food labels.
truth: i-522 offers no economic incentives for lawyers to sue. consumers can't file a class action suit against food
producers without first giving the food producer a warning and the opportunity to comply with the law. as long as the
defendant fixes the labels, then no class action is permitted.

LiE: Labeling GMOs creates a bureaucratic nightmare for grocers and retailers and requires the state government to
monitor labels on thousands of food products in thousands of stores, costing taxpayers millions.
truth: under i-522, the person responsible for labeling processed foods is the person who puts the label on: the
manufacturer. retailers would only have to label the few raw commodities (sweet corn, papaya, squash) that are geneti-
cally engineered. they can either stick a simple label on the bin or, if they wish, they can ask their supplier for a sworn
statement that the crop is not genetically engineered. i-522 requires no costly testing for GE ingredients. no burden-
some government oversight is necessary. the system is inherently designed to protect small grocers and retailers while
providing consumers with the right to know what’s in their food without increasing grocery costs.

LiE: GE foods pose no health safety risks.
truth: a growing body of peer-reviewed animal studies have linked these foods to allergies, organ toxicity, diabetes,
cancer, autoimmune disorders, birth defects, high infant mortality rates, fertility problems, and sterility.

LiE: We need GMOs to feed the world.
truth: Studies have proven that GE crops do not lead to greater crop yields. in fact, just the opposite is true. a 2009
study by the union of concerned Scientists found GMO crops fail to produce higher yields. and a recently released,
peer-reviewed study published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability found that conventional plant
breeding, not genetic engineering, is responsible for yield increases in major u.S. crops.

Wise Traditions FALL 2013 FALL 2013 Wise Traditions 25

123816_text.indd 25 9/20/13 1:00 AM